Group Title: Government gazette, Grenada
Title: Government gazette
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076858/00213
 Material Information
Title: Government gazette
Physical Description: v. : ; 34 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Grenada
Publisher: Govt. Print. Off.
Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication: St George's Grenada
Publication Date: December 31, 1955
Frequency: weekly
Subject: Politics and government -- Grenada   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Grenada
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- 1883-
General Note: Includes supplements consisting of bills, ordinances, statutory rules & orders, etc.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076858
Volume ID: VID00213
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - ABP7269
oclc - 01508738
alephbibnum - 000271428

Table of Contents
        Page 521
        Page 522
        Page 523
        Page 524
        Page 525
        Page 526
        Page 527
        Page 528
Full Text



Government Gazette.

nibiistr ch bij Antihoriti.



No. 334.
JIS Excellency the Governn', 1"'. '. !.
SDEVERELL, (.M.G., C.V.O., O.B.I.. .- I -
to the Colony from the United Kiiij.; (;I
Saturday, 24th December, 1955.
Mr. D. J. KIRKNESS, Financial iand tcoonomical
Adviser, Windward Islands, also returned to thi;
Colony on that date.

30th December, 1955.
P.P. 886.
P.F. 883.

No. 355.
Tourist Trade Development Board.
WTITH reference to Gazette Notice No. 4 da.tdi
tT 4th January, 1955, the life of the Touriset
Board has been extended until 20tli Jlauary,
31st December, 1955.
M.P. 498. DII.

No. 356.
Tr HE undermentioned Ordinances which have
L been assentod to by His Excellency the
Governor are published with this issue of the
Gazette :--
No. 20 of 1955.--An Ordinance further to amend
the Bank Holiday Act.
No. 21 of 1955.-An Ordinance further to amend
the Registration of Clubs Ordinance (Cap.
No. 22 of 1955.-An Ordinance further to anenli
the Immigration (Restriction) Ordinance,

N(. ofif 1955.---\n ordinance further to amend
the N tmueg Industry Ordinance, 1946.
N: 214 1' 55 \n Ordinance further to amend
:: Police i'ensions Ordinance, (Cap. 166).
N i 1955.-.\n Ordinance further to amend
Sii: C ustoins Duties Ordinance, (Cap. 59).
2N. ci of 1-95..-An Ordinance to amend the
J,,ry Ord inmnce, (Cap. 107).
N:,. [7 if. 15i.-An Ordinance to amend the
Aid i Pioneer Industries Ordinance, 1952.
No. of 1955-An Ordinance to amend the
Lejgisla;ive Council (Elections) Ordinance,
19. i.
No. 29 (it 1.j.--An Ordinance to amend the
Sale co Pioduce Ordinance, 1954.
No. 30 of 1955.-An Or finance further to amend
tile Deportation (British Subjects) Ordin-
ance, l :'.
No. `,1 *)f 1955.---n Ordinance to make pro-
vision for the creation of :. Public Service
No. 32 of 1955.-An Ordinance to ratify the
L-recmlont of the first day of Novein.er,
195.1, ene red into between the Govern-
ments of certain Caribbean Territories and
tie \est Indies Navigation Company
No. 33 of 1'955.-An Ordinance to amend the
law relating to the civil liabilities and rights
of '!io Crown and to civil proceedings by
and against the Crown, to amend the law
rela:ig to the civil liabilities of persons
other than the Crown ii certain cases in-
volving the affairs or property of the Crown,
and fcr purposes connected with the matters
Copies of these Ordinances may be seen at the
Government Office, the Public Library, the
Treasury, District Revenue and Post Offices, and
I Police Statiions.
31st December, 1955.

j/~S7" 7

g) C


No. 357.
THE following documents are circulated with and
form part of this Gazette :-
S.R. & 0. No. 48.-The Public Lotteries (Sus-
pension of Schedule) Order, 19955.
S.R. & 0. No. 49.-The Bank Holiday Procla-
mation 1955.

By Command,

Acting 'Gove'rlimen-t Se,:'cjtarl.
Government Office,
i3st December, 1955.

Grenada Students in U.S A.

SS'tudents Liaison Service has recently been so'
up in the U.S.A. for students troi t tihe Brltish
Caribhean, and the Liaison Officer wishes infornmi-
tion regarding all Students from (Grnadat.
Members of the public who have relh;tives
studying in the U.S.A. are therefore rlquc, el. to
supply to Government Office tile I'iiis ;inl uni-
versities and colleges where such students are

Government Office,
St. George's,
28th December, 1955.


IHE St. George's Pier ( Admiralty ('liart 2'-I21)
w_ ws totai.lly destroyed during tlir uricianf
of September 22, 1955, and now exists rl,; a-, an
underwater obstruction in ain around : I,, area of
its original site. Mariners are warned t, (\xer'ise
caution in that area.

IHarboi. M.i ;ster.
St. George's,
30th December, 1955.


Flour Imports.

T is hereby notified for general information that
Government has been informe-' el the oaues
advised for the ship ent of t-he flor' donated hy
the Government of Canada for distribution to
persons left in distress by the hurricane of 22nd
September, 1955. The distribute :u will hI (effeered
through the Central Eme'rgency Reliei Coiniiil,toe.
The quantity allocated to Grenada is approxi-
mately 5,8U0, h;lf--bigs which will be shipped as
follows:-one ha f (2900 half-bhas) to arrive in
Grenada in the latter half of January, !95i, and
the remaining 2,900 hialf-lags to arrive in the
latter part oi l'ehiruary 195G. The proportions
requested are tvo--thirds in soft wheat and one-

third in hard wheat flour in each shipment; the
flour is being put up in twenty 5-lb. paper bags
in each cotton half-sack of 100 lbs. It is prob-
able that a part of this flour will he for distribution
in the St. Vincent Grenadines.
Importers are notified that these quantities will
cover aboui: one-tlird of the present monthly
consumption of flour in Grenada for two months,
ani! should b- guided accordingly in placing their
orders ironi Canada and the U.S.A. These orders
should He covered by approved Import Licences as

Competent Authority.
24',h December, 1955.


IN accordance with t he powers vested in me under
i S-ction 21 of the Customs Ordinance, Cap. 58,
I ;:pp:int the building known as the Motor Trans-
p art G(;nle, in Scot; Street, St. George's, as a
Warehouse for warehousing goods imported with-
out pi;yment of duty on the first entry thereof.

Finncrial Secretry..
Tre'suiry & Customs Department,
(G'en ida.
30th Iecember, 1'55.

1l1H undermentioned articles, which were un-
S laden fimi the l.Y. Madinina" on tile 3rd
December, 1 )55i, ccntr try to the provisions of the
Customs Ordin-nce, have h"en forfeited, and will
:eIcrdiinly be sold by Public Auction at 2 p.m. on
Tlh rSid l/, I &th .Janiuanri, 1956, at the Office of the
Clief l-: veuiue Officer, St. George's:-
3i Wrist Watches
1 \Vrist-Watch Bands
'iiinanc, / Sc'iretlm y.
Treasury & Customs Dept.,
16th Deceimber, 1955.

rTliIE iundermentioned prpmrises are no longer
1 Ciusoi:s LWa'oI1on s within the monaeling of
Sectio, -:I c

ILaukeys' Garage,
IIubbard's garagee ,

Mo-tor Transport
SQervice (down-

... Car,1a;oe, St. G(;eege's.
... co.t Street, St
G eorge's

stairs) ... Tryne Alley, St.
Financial Secretacji.
Treasury & Customs Department,
30th December, 1955.






Between :




WILLAN EDWARD JULIEN Defendant-Respondent.

1955. No. 1-GRENADA.

Before :

MATHIEU PEREZ, C.J., Trinidad and Tobago.
COLLYMORE, C.J., Barbados.
JACKSON, C.J., Windward Islands and
Leeward Islands.

1955. November, 21,22, December 19.

F. M. HENRY with DENIS HENRY for the Appellant.
H. E. L. HOSTEN, for the Respondent.


This appeal arises out of an action for libel and
slander brought by the appellant, who is and was
at the material time the Suigeon Specialist at the
Colony Hospital, against the respondent. The
statements complained of are contained in a letter
to the appellant dated 2nd November, 1953. The
letter is as follows :-

St. George's
2nd November, 1953.
Dr. Soltysik,
Colony Hospital,
St. George's.

Dear Sir,
You are claiming that my son Wilfred
Julien owes you $30 for "consultation fee"
when in fact you never had a consultation
prior to his operation for appendicitis.
This afternoon you met him and asked for
your money and in the presence of a witness
you literally threatened him by using these
words "You don't intend to pay me but next
time you will see". Now, doctor, those
words used by a surgeon to a supposed debtor
can be interpreted to mean two things to a
jury but, to me, that threat can mean one
thing only.
I am responsible for the non-payment of
'hat bogus consultation fee, and I tell you
this so that if you have the pleasure of knifing

me at any time, you may by way of revenge
allow your knife to slip because I am not
afraid to die. But let me warn you that I
would not stand by and let you or any other
man threaten my son for a debt which was
not incurred.
Many Grenadians have borne with a heavy
heart your demands for the now famous
"consultation fee" because they are afraid
that "next time they would see".
I am demanding from you an explanation
of that threat to my son because now you
have started the ball lolling the time for the
show-down has arrived.
A copy of this letter has been forwarded to
the Administrator and one to the Governor.
1 expect to have your explanation by noon on
Wednesday 4th instant.

Yours sincerely,
On the same day the respondent sent a copy of
the letter with a covering letter to His Excellency
the Governor and a copy to the Administrator.
The covering letter to the Governor reads thus :-

His Excellency,
The Governor,

St. George's,
2nd November, 1953.

Your Excellency,
The enclosed copy of a letter which I have
just despatched to Dr. Soltysik is intended for
your information. I take a grave view of the
Doctor's threat and, since I intend to take
legal proceedings, failing an immediate satis-
factory explanation I have thought it prudent
to inform you and the Administrator about
my action.
I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,



In the statement of claim which was filed on
14th December, 1953, the appellant claimed inter
alia "that by the words of that letter the respondent
meant and was understood.to mean that the plain-
tiff is a cruel, inhuman, revengeful and dangerous
person and unfit to be employed as a surgeon at the
Colony Hospital because with respect to patients
who object to pay the consultation fee charged by
the plaintiff, he would in the discharge of his
professional duties, by way of revenge take the
opportunity to bring about the death of such
patients by deliberately causing his knife to slip ;
and that many Grenadians have paid such con-
sultation fee because they are afraid of the
possibility that refusal by them to rav such fee
would cause them to be victims of the plaintiff's
In the defence filed on 1Sth Febluary, 1954. the
respondent admitted publication of the letter,
denied that the letter was written falsely or
maliciously, that the words bore or were under-
stood to bear or are capable of bearing any of the


meanings alleged by the plaintiff or any deiamator
br actionable meaning. Further he set up th
defence that the letter was written on a privileges
occasion without malice and in a rolled up pie
that the contents of the letter amounted to fai
comment on a matter of public interest. During
the course of the trial for reasons which appear oi
the record the allegation of slander became o
little importance and the case proceeded in thl
Court below and before us on the allegation o
libel only.
In February, 1953, the appellant was unde
contract with the Government of Grenada receiving
a fixed salary. He was not entitled to am
operation fees but claims he was entitled to so
called consultation fees for consultation practice
On the 17th February, 1953, he operated fo6
appendicitis on one Wilfred Julien, the son of thf
respondent who was at the material time a member
of the Legislative Council. On the patient'
discharge he handed him personally a bill foi
consultation amounting to six guineas. Thi,
bill was not paid then and has not in fact beer
paid. In November, 1953, the appellant saw
Wilfred Julien in the street, spoke to him and
according to the appellant said "Do you remember
if I have examined you before the operation in my
office or did I see you in the private block ?"
Julien replied, "Oh no, you did not see me in your
office. I went to Dr. Alexis who told me I had
appendicitis. In the night 1 felt worse and went
to hospital and you saw me in the private block."
I told him "I see you did not want to pay but next
time you will see you will have to pay". At that
time one Harbin was present. Harbin in his
evidence stated "that he was with appellant and
Wilfred Julien came up. The appellant asked
him if he was going to pay him his money and
Wilfred Julien said he had no intention of paying
him as he had paid Dr. Alexis his consultation fee.
The doctor asked him who would pay for his girl
friend. Wilfred said he did not know. The
doctor said "Next time you see what happened".
Another version of what took place on that
occasion is to be found in the evidence bf Wilfred
Julien whose evidence was taken de bene esse
and who stated "while at the hospital and before
being operated on I was examined by Dr. Soltysik,
the plaintiff, and he advised me to have my
appendix removed the same day and it was accor-
dingly done. Before I was discharged the plaintiff
presented me with a bill for six guineas for con-
sultation. I did not have a consultation with him
at any time. I did see the plaintiff on the
2nd November. He asked me when I was going
to pay him his money. I replied I was not aware
that I had any consultation with him. He said,
"You don't intend to pay me my money ; the next
time you come to the hospital you will see." This
incident was reported by Wilfred Julien to his
father, the respondent, as a result of which the
respondent wrote the letter complained of. The
learned trial Judge stated "There is a sharp
difference between the version of the incident in
November given by the plaintiff and that given by
Wilfred Julien. Oliver Harbin though called as a
witness for the plaintiff supported the evidence
of Wilfred Julien. Having regard therefore to the
weight of evidence the Court accepts the version
as related by Wilfred Julien as being substantially
correct". It is difficult to see why the Judge
preferred the version of the incident as given by
Wilfred Julien to that given by the appellant, the

y more so as he w'.s denied the opportunity of
e seeing or hearing W'ilfred Ju ien and arbDin's
d testimony does not, ;: or vie>. 3lnd to lenci any
a more support to Wiii'rd J.ulicn's version than to
r tha of the appellant.
S in the course of his judgment the lear; ed trial
f Judge said
S "Notwithstanding the circumstance, which
f provoked the letter, it is a fundament.il legal
principle that no one shall be permitted to libel or
r slander another in the course of his professional
g calling. The plaintiff is a Surgeon Specialist and
y as such has responsibilities towards his patients,
- the public, and his employers the Government of
Sthe Colony. To ascribe to him willingness to
r breach those high demands of his professional
e conduct merely because certain fees were not paid
r him is undoubtedly prima facie a defamatory
s statement, which can only be countenanced or
Excused by the legal defences of justification,
Privilege, or fair comment".
SThe respondent in the letter under complaint
states that "those words used by a surgeon to a
Supposed debtor can be interpreted to mean two
things to a jury but to me that threat can mean one
thing only" and that is if the appellant had at any
Time "the pleasure 3f knifing" him he may "by
way of revenge allow his knife to slip" because he
the respondent was not afraid to die.
It is clear that the letter as a whole is defamatory
in the extreme of the appellant in his professional
capacity and we agree with the Judge's finding in
this respect.
The Judge found that the letter was written on
an occasion of qualified privilege but that such
privilege was destroyed. With this finding we are
in entire accord and against this finding there has
been no cross appeal by the respondent. He
further found that the defence of fair comment
had been established and gave judgment for the
respondent with cost.
The grounds of the appeal are :
1. That the judgment in so far as it rested on
findings of fact upon which any alleged comment
was made or was alleged by the defendant-respon-
dent to have been made was unreasonable and/or
against the weight of evidence ; in particular,
the learned trial Judge mis-directed himself in
holding that the witness Oliver Harbin supported
the evidence of Wilfred Julien.
2. That the learned trial Judge failed to appre-
ciate and /or was wrong in law in that he failed to
appreciate the fact that a true interpretation of the
terms of the contract of the plaintiff-appellant
with the Government of Grenada was irrelevant
to the issues of the action : and that in any event
he was wrong in holding that the plaintiff-appellant
had no legal or moral right to charge a consul-
tation fee in the circumstances referred to in the
said judgment.
3. That the finding of the trial Judge as to fair
comment is erroneous in the law in that :
(a) He failed to appreciate and give proper
effect to his finding of malice in th defen-
dant-respondent the existence of which
destroyed both the defence of qualified
privilege and fair comment.



b) That the comment expressed by the defen-
dant-respondent was intrinsically unfair
and is not protected merely because it is
not inspired by any malicious motive.
(c) That the attack on the moral and profes-
sional character of the plaintiff-appellant
was not warranted by the facts stated even
if they were true, and that such comment
was perversely unjust.
4. That the decision of the learned trial Judge
is unreasonable, and/or against the weight of
evidence and accordingly should be set aside.
Before us it has been urged on behalf of the
respondent, that he the respondent and his son were
the aggrieved parties in as much as the son was
-called upon to pay a bogus bill and on non-payment
thereof was threatened by the appellant that the
"next time you will see". There have been no
proceedings taken by the respondent as intimated
in his covering letter to the Governor.
With regard to fair comment, it is clear law that
for a comment to be fair the following conditions
must be satisfied :
(a) It must be based on facts truly stated.
(b) It must not contain imputations of corrupt
or dishonourable motives on the person
whose conduct or work is criticised, save
in so far as such imputations are warranted
by the facts.
(c) It must be the honest expression of the
writer's real opinion.
A writer may not suggest or invent facts or adopt
as true the untrue statements of fact made by
others and then comment upon them on the
assumption that they are true. If the facts upon
which the comment purports to be made do not
exist, the defence of fair comment must fail. "If
the defendant makes a mis-statement of any of the
facts upon which he comments, he at once negatives
the possibility of his comment being fair". (Per
Collins M.F. in Digby v. Financial News Ltd.
'1907) 1 K.B. at page 508). "In a case where the
facts are fully set out in the alleged libel each fact
must be justified and if the defendant fails to justify
one even if it be comparatively unimportant he
fails in his defence". (Per Lord Porter in
Kemsley v. Foot 1952. AI--E.R. at P. 506).
Further fair comment is not absolute but relative ;
criticism must not be used as a cloak for mere
invective nor for personal imputation not arising
out of the subject matter and not based on fact.
"Where the public conduct of a public man is
open to animadversion and the writer who is
commenting upon it makes imputations on his
motives which arise fairly and legitimately out
of his conduct so that a jury shall say that the
criticism was not only honest but also well founded
an action is not maintainable. But it is not
because a public writer fancies that the conduct
of a public man is open to the suspicion of dis-
honesty he is therefore justified in assailing his
character as dishonest". ((Campbell v. Spottirwoode
3 B & 1 777. 122 E,R. 291).
The respondent further contended that as a
member of the Legislative Council it was his duty
to bring to the notice of the proper authorities the
conduct of the appellant in relation to the so-called
consultation fees. It is significant that in the letter
he states that "many Grenadians have borne with
a heavy heart your demands for the now famous
'consultation fee' because they are afraid that

"next time they would see". While it may be
true that there is some evidence that certain people
questioned the consultation fees charged by the
appellant there is no evidence of payment by
anyone because of fear that non-payment may
result in the appellant allowing 'his knife to slip'
should further surgical treatment of those persons
become necessary. Furthermore an examination
of the evidence of the respondent shows that he
failed completely to support that allegation ;
albeit no justification in respect thereof was
pleaded. When questioned on this point the
respondent sought refuge in this answer :
"Imeant that though fees were paid by many
people in Grenada, is that when people go to the
doctor that unless they paid first theywould get
no attentionor proper medical care". It is impos-
sible to see any analogy between the statement
given by the respondent in this explanation and
the statements recorded in the letter.
The mere fact that the defendant honestly
believed the charges to be true is in itself no defence.
The learned trial Judge in summing up the situ-
ation said : "The language used, the Court has
already indicated, was indeed strong, but the point
to find is whether, from the language itself, or from
the surrounding circumstances, it can be held
that the commentator was not expressing his real
honest view (though it might differ from a jury's),
but rather indulging in abuse or invective under
the guise of criticism. The onus is on the plaintiff
and if he does not discharge this onus of satisfying
the Court that the view was not the honest view of
the commentator, he must fail. This onus may of
course also be discharged from the document
itself. Throughout his evidence, the defendant
has impressed the Court that the views expressed
are his honest views. The plaintiff, on the other
hand, has not been able to destroy that impression
or to satisfy the Court, that the views expressed
by defendant were dishonest or so exaggerated
as to be incapable of being the reasonable views
of an honest man however prejudiced he may be".
The Judge evidently thought that whatever views
a commentator may express short of mere abuse
or invective they cannot constitute a libel so long
as they are the commentator's honest views ; on this
he is seriously in error and his view is in conflict
with authority for the views must not only be
honest but also be well founded.
If the contents of the letter had been properly
confined to the question whether the appellant
was or was not entitled to charge consultation
fees, there could be no complaint and we have
no doubt that the respondent honestly believed
that such consultation fee was not payable.
But the contents go much further and impute
that the appellant when operating on people who
had questioned his fee 'may allow his knife to
slip"-a graver accusation against a surgeon
would be difficult to conceive. Counsel urged
that implicit in the words alleged to have been
used by the appellant to Wilfred Julien was a threat
that should Wilfred Julien return to hospital for
surgical treatment that the appellant would do
him "harm as a surgeon in that capacity"
Assuming that the words used were as deposed
to by Wilfred Julien, we are convinced that they
are not in the nature of a threat to do violence as
interpreted by the respondent.
The onus lay on the respondent to prove not
only that the subject matter was one of public
interest but also that the words of the letter were


GOVERNMEIU'T GAZ"JETTE., DECE"MBEil ., 1tb. i~Ku. ?.:)

a fair comment on it. The Judge, as ha:; already
been indicated, found that it was a matter of public
interest and that the qualified privilege was
destroyed. The letter here contained statements
of fact and the onus was on the respondent to
prove that 'he statements of fact v;ere :.':e or that
there had been no mis-sratemcnt of facls in te
statement of the materials upon which the corn-
ment was based and that the comment based on
such facts was warranted in the sense that a fair
minded man might bona fide hold the opinion
expressed upon them. It is only when the above
onus has been discharged that the burden to prove
that the words exceed the limits of fair comment
shifts to the appellant. The respondent failed to
prove that all the statements of fact contained in
the letter are true and we are of opinion that the
language used, is so extreme that no fair minded
man could in the circumstances honestly have
used it. We find the letter defamatory of the
appellant and the defences set up fail.
The question of damages remains. The Court
in assessing the damages is entitled to take into
consideration the conduct of the respondent
before action, after action and in Court at the time
of the action. The letter was written on 2nd
November, 1953 ; it contains a request for an
explanation by a certain time ; before that time
had elapsed and indeed on the very day the letter
was written copies were sent to the Governor and
the Administrator. On 10th November, 1953,
a letter on behalf of the appellant was written
to the respondent. It is as follows :-
10th November, 1953,
W. E. Julicn, Esq.,
Young Street,
St. George's.
Dear Sir,
I am instructed by Dr. Soltysik, Surgeon
Specialist, to wiite you on the subject of your
letter to him dated the 2nd day of November,
1953, which constitutes a grave libel upon
my client, in respect of which he is entitled
to damages.
The defamatory matter was published by
you to persons other than my client, whose
professional reputation you have injured con-
Dr. Soltysik, is, however, prepared to
waive his claim for damages, provided you
will sign a suitable withdrawal and apology
in terms to be approved by him and will pay
the costs he has incurred in this matter.
If you are not prepared to adopt the course
indicated above, my instructions are to
commence proceedings against you without
further notice.
Please let me have a reply before Monday
the 16th inst.
Yours faithfully,
F. M. Henry.

No reply to this letter was sent and indeed the
respondent in his evidence stated "When I read
letter I tore it up after reading it. I felt I was
injured party and "I treated the letter with the
contempt it deserved". At no time throughout
the proceedings has there been any sign of regret
shown by the respondent.

In the result the appeal is allowed. The judg-
ment of the trial Jrdgc is reversed, the order set
aside and judgment \will be cn1erdc for tile appelllant
for 500 damages. T r,': '.. i! p;y the
costs incurred in t',: Co :,i- bciov and cf this

Chief Justice, Trinidad and 7 hago.

Chief Justice, Barbados.

Chief Justice, Windward Islands and
Leeward Islands.


In the Supreme Court of the Windward
Islands and Leeward Islands, Grenada,

TOTICE is hereby given thqt a Session of the
L_ I Scpreme Court of the Windward Islands and
Leeward Islands at Grenada, in its Criminal Juris-
diction, will be held at the Coum' House, in the
town cf St George, on Thursday, the ol2d dayI of
February, 1956, At 9.30 o'clock in the forenoon,
when and where all concerned and bound over to
prosecute or to give e"dtence cr summoned as
Jurors or Witnesses are required to give their
personal attendance, ard all Officers who have
taken Inquisitions, Depositions, Examinations,
Recognizances or other papers cognizable by the
Court are required to return the same without
delay to this Office.
Dated this 22nd day of December, 1955.

Registrar, Siupreme Court.
Registrar's Office,
St. "'eo:age,s.
Grenada, B. W. i.

Under The Boundaries Settlemenit Ordinance.

IN pursuance of Section 21 (2) of the above Or-
dinance, I hereby give notice that a copy of a
diagram and a report cf Mr. 1. R. SEON, Licensed
Land Surveyor, of a survey made at the request of
Mr. J. II. V. REDHEAD on behalf of the Very
Reverend FATHER JUSTIN FIELDS with respect to
the settlement of the boundary lines between R. C.
Church Lands and the property of Miss CLARA
PURCELL situate at St. George's, has been lodged
by the Director of Surveys in the Offiice of the
Registrar of the Supreme tourt of Grenada.

RIegitrar, Supreme Court.
Registrar's Office,
St. George's,
19th December, 1955.





\TOTICE is hereby given th,1.1 the Annual Licensing Session constituted under the provisions of the
iN Liquor Dealers' Licences Oi linao. Chapter 123, fo' gqrantmg cerrific-ite for the isoii: < reje a]
of licences in the l''aish of S Join, f'.r the year 1l'ii, ihas leen adji urYne to 1Fi -., / 0 i /i d' y ofj
January, 1956, at ihe hour of 9.00 o'clock in tle i ori at t'or, i ate St. J, J his Slgis;te's court.

Particulars of Applications for New Certificates.

Name ,t Appl cani. Oc : ioI sidc Ie) on :1 pr i,,.s so,,g':; Le Ilcc: sld.

Gladford T. Boyke Shopkeeper Gouyave \Wooden building sitnuce at Duncan's Town.
(1hristopier Charles Proprietor do Wa1ll & Woo(on building situate at Low.
l)op. Street, Gouyave.
Percy John Shopkeeper do Wall building situate at j.uncan's Town.
Joseph C. Romney Propiictor Waterloo ..oodon building situate at Central Dep.
Grace Thomas Shopkeeper Gouyave Wall building situate at Duncan's Town.

Magistrate's Office, Cnmi RG.IE nP ii.r 1-.,.

20th December, 1953.

-AI SL'.JJJYj, 'Ill II
for i1arostrate, WesItern Districr.


NVOTICE is hereby given that the Aunual Licensing Sns.ion under the provisions of the Liquor
I Dealers' Licences Ordinanc awn tlhe Sa;le of Produce Ordinance, has been adjournedd to Wednesday,
th," 11th day of January, 1956, at 9.00 o'clock in the forenoon, a' the Sauteurs Magistrate's Court.

Under the Liquor Dealers' Licences Ordinance: Particulars of Applications for
New Certificates.

Na;men of Applicant. Occupation I Residnnce DI)cription of proiss sowulht to li -rnsed.

Jerome W. Toussaint ... Shopkeeper Santeurs Wooden building at -anteurs.
Wilfred Graham .. do Morne Fendue Wall building at Morne Fondue.

Magistrate's Office,
28th Dceember, 1955.

for Magistrate, Western District .


rFHERE will he a sitting of the Supreme Court at Grenada in its Summary Jurisdietion commencing
L on iohIonda 9th Jariawai 1956, at 9.30 a.m. The following matters have been set down for


No. of Suit.

Commencing 9/1/56.

Peter Gloster Mitchell
T. E. N. Smith & Co.
The Dorsey Company
Angelina Pascal
Stephen Mitchell
Molly Bastien
Juanita Lett
In re I)oris Bullen & Ors.
In re Estate of Fitz-Walter John, deceased.
Harrieth Joseph
Radix Bartholomew

... vs.
.. vs.
... vs.
... vs.
... vs.

Richard Calder
Clifton Dottin
H. A. McKie
Antoine R Pascal
Auldith Wright
Mahy Matthew
Arthur Grainger & Ors.

... vs. Angelina Joseph & Anr.
... vs. Dr. Adclph Bierzynski



Commencing 10/1/56.

Maxwell Cadore
In re Estate of Theophilus Jones, deceased
Elias A. John
Jane Wiltshire

W. E. Juien & Cc. Ltd.
W. E. Julien & Co. Ltd.
C. A. Campbell

Belmore Telesford
T. B. Bertrand

Prince Williams
In re Estate of David Quarless, deceased

Michael Gibbs
Schools Ashton
Roosevelt G. Antoine

Gavon Mitchell
George N. Cox

Alice MA. Blache
Anthony R. Bain

Harvey Alexis

23rd December, 1955.

... vs. Richard Augustine & Anr.

... vs. Hutchinson Stroker & Anr.
... vs. Percy Belgrave

ncing 11/1/56.
... vs. D. A. DaBreo
.. vs. Joshua Thorne & Anr.
... vs. Florence Punch-Johnson

fencing 13/1/56.
.. vs. Solomon Cairington
... vs. O. D. Brisbane & Sons

ncing 16/1/56.
... vs. Rebecca Williams

Commencing 17/1/56.
... vs. Olive Mitchell
... vs. Maurice Nya*k
... vs. Martha Antoine

Commencing 19/1/56.
... vs. Joseph Buck & Anr.
... vs. Alice Maud Cox

Commencing 20/1/56.
... vs. Linton S. Blache
... vs. Ann Bain & Anr.

Commencing 21/1/56.







38/5 t

... vs. Commissioners of Income Tax 164/55

Registrar of the Supreme Court.


Grenada Co-operative Nutmeg Association.

Effective from 21st November, 1955
Current Advances for Nutmegs and Mace are as follows:


Green Nutmegs

Dry do.

Cracked Grinders

Dried Whole Mace

Dried Broken Mace

Mace Pickings

Ad vancies

15 Cents

25 do.

10 do.

90 do.

50 do.

25 do.

Producers are hereby informed that after the 30th November, 1955, the rates of Advane's will no
longer be published in the Press but will be posted up at all Receiving Stations. The rates will also be
posted up on the doors of all Police Stations and published in the Gazette as required by law.

Date fixed: 12th December, 1955.




Publications Not Available

Supplements to
Grenada Government Gazette
v.73 no.75

Ordinance No. 20-33 of 1955
Statutory Rules and Orders
No. 48-49 of 1955

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs